Residents in the areas that would have been sewered under the projects rejected by the Barnstable Town Council need to understand that those projects are not dead.

The votes mean that no federal funds will be used to fund sewer projects for Stewart’s Creek or the Wequaquet Lake area, but each remains on the town’s books for implementation.

The council’s votes stand in contradiction to its prior actions.

In May, the town council voted unanimously to spend $3.9 million for the first half of the Stewart’s Creek Project based on 100 percent betterments to residents and without any subsidy.

Six weeks later, the same council rejected the second half of the project, based on betterments and a loan subsidy through the federal stimulus program.

The difference is clear. The earlier vote, taken as part of the town’s 2010 Capital Improvement Plan, came and went with little discussion and no public objection. The second vote came with large dollar signs attached and significant opposition.

The Wequaquet area had actually been down this path before. In November 2004, town officials held a meeting to talk with residents about a project they believed was well understood. The well-attended, sometimes angry meeting quickly disabused the town of that notion, especially on the costs.

What was true then remain true today. The priorities of those on the lake aren’t the same as all who’d have to connect. Those far off the lake would pay the same costs as waterfront property owners. As one homeowner put it at the June 25 public hearing, repeating himself to drive the point home, “I live on Phinney’s Lane.”

All of that served to cause some councilors to take pause, resulting in a no vote that will deprive the town of subsidy funds for a project that may need to happen anyway.

That will continue to be a problem, not just in Barnstable, but across the Cape. At the July 8 Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative meeting, the phrase “that’s a political decision” was a near-constant refrain when discussing the difficulty of cost and placement of the treatment solutions needed.

The problems for sewering will not just be technical; they will be political also. Whenever someone commits someone else’s money to solve a shared problem, there’s going to be friction.

Town Manager John Klimm said he’s started to float the idea that if the council was to consider adopting the newly-available .75 percent meals tax, the revenue be considered for capital needs. That’s a discussion very much in formation. There haven’t been substantive discussions within the administration or town council on whether there’s an appetite for the meals tax.

The estimated $1.2 million the increased tax would cover only a portion, but, as they say, it’s a start.

What’s clear is that those who are willing to accept that sewering is needed, not just in these areas but across the town, want and will demand equitable and shared payment for the enormous bill it will require.

How that happens is not clear, but that’s what needs to be solved. The unacceptable alternative is to continue pitting residents against residents, village against village, and everyone against the town.

DS II editor@barnstablepatriot.com

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.